Comments on: Correct weight

By: Andrew Owens

Andrew Owens — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:37:35 +0000

Almost forgot – from that election also, there’s another type of donkey voting that occurs that seems to be particular to major party voters. The idea is to number the major party 1 (or someone like the Greens or One Nation 1 and major party 2) and donkey vote the rest. The reason for this would seem to be the (normally correct) presumption that the contest will be one between two major parties and so once one has voted one or the other, the rest of the preferences don’t matter too much. This would be *very* interesting if a major party got ruled out and a high-profile independent was near the top of the paper under a full-preferential system.

By: Andrew Owens

Andrew Owens — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:28:24 +0000

The donkey vote can be overstated. I was a candidate in the Victoria Park by-election in WA (March 2006) and my scrutineers reported the donkey vote was about 0.2% – however the turnout was 63% of enrolled voters, suggesting that those voters confused by the 11-candidate ballot paper exercised an even easier option. I would note that such a low turnout seems to be particular to byelections.

By: Stephen L

Stephen L — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 07:42:17 +0000

I posted a piece about the Donkey vote a little while ago which seems to be have become lost in cyberspace. I won’t repeat myself in case it turns up, but will respond to Ben – the Donkey vote always blows out dramatically at by-elections where one major party is not running a candidate.

It seems that many major party voters simply can’t be bothered finding the independent or small party that is closest to them, so they go for a donkey vote instead. I think this had more to do with the high AAFI vote in Weriwa than the sheer number of candidates.

By: Ben Raue

Ben Raue — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:23:44 +0000

Surely the value of the donkey vote is directly related to the number of candidates, and whether filling out the entire ballot is required. Donkey votes are easy to complete, therefore as it becomes more difficult to cast a formal vote (switching from the Qld system to the Federal system) they would be the least affected, thus would increase.

Also, seeing a ballot with a large number of candidates or seeing that you are required to number all boxes would probably lead voters to take the easy way out by numbering from top to bottom. Look at Werriwa 2005, where AAFI managed to poll over 4% from the top position on the ballot, beating many candidates with much much larger presences in the campaign.

By: Glen Ryman

Glen Ryman — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:10:32 +0000

With optional preferential voting, a voter can place a donkey vote in any box. I doubt too many DVs could be bothered filling out all of the boxes. Better still: let your enrollment lapse and then don’t turn up at all. The DV died when it became illegal to change your name to ‘Informal’.

By: hephalump

hephalump — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:10:16 +0000

the family first candidate in gympie is the president of the gympie chamber of commerce and has been on tv quite a bit campaigning against the dam

By: William Bowe

William Bowe — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:06:53 +0000

I got the 2 per cent figure off Wikipedia, and yes I did think it sounded awfully high. I have revised the offending phrase downwards now that I know better.

By: Graeme

Graeme — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:55:50 +0000

Why assume the ‘donkey’ vote is upwards of 2%? Ballot labelling is likely responsible for a large drop in the old donkey vote. From memory Andrew Leigh’s recent study put it at half that figure.

Even that may be an overstatement. You can find plenty of examples (eg when the Natural Law Party stood candidates) where the first placed candidate has attracted around 0.5% of the vote. Those examples suggest to me that the donkey vote is miniscule – or at least donkeys are not blind markers of ballots, but look for the first party label that doesn’t offend them.

By: Politics_Obsessed

Politics_Obsessed — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:51:41 +0000

ahh thanks for the explaination will… it’s probably my junk mail filter- just tell me what address you use and ill add it to always allow…..

me corrupt? lol im not a politician yet so im not corrupt haha

By: edward o

edward o — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:58:28 +0000

Well, I was going to say that the areas are as bad as each other, but as I used to live in the similarly-demographic-ed Glass House, I won’t throw stones.